Common Property Resources and Their Linkages with
Livelihood in South Asia: A Review
Sudarshan Prasad Regmi1
Abstract:
About fifty literatures published during 1980 to date were reviewed for the
common property resources, CPRs, especially pasturelands. They were
categorized in three aspects viz. linkages, livelihood and share of income, and
effect on CPRs and role of CPRs. It was analyzed for their linkages, the strong
and the weak linkages were identified. A framework of the linkages was
developed. It is revealed that management of CPRs plays a vital role for the
sustainable productivity of common pastureland and to private farm land. It
was observed that the socioeconomic aspects of rangeland /pastureland in the
context of Nepal, as well as in the regional level (ICIMOD, that accounts for
40 percent of high hills, has been neglected and a strong policy implication
should be implemented based on research findings.
Introduction:
Common properly resources are those natural resources in which a group of people
has equal rights to use. These resources are characterized by free access for all individuals
of the locality and lies outside the market framework. They play vital role in substance of
hill farming system in particular. Because of meager size of operational holding, poor
infrastructure facilities in hill agriculture CPRs directly or indirectly play an important role
in enhancing and stabilizing the income, employment and substance of village community
by providing multiple products to various activity of their farming system.
Interpreting natural resource in a broad way, those arrests that provide the many and
varied ecosystem services upon which life is based (Dasgupta and Maler, 2004). A number
have a global reach, but many are local. Nature’s services are not only of direct value of use
they offer indirect benefits too: a multitude support and promote the natural resource base
on which our economic activities are founded [e.g. mangrove frost, Pastureland].
The numerous roles nature plays in the lines of rural people into world poorest
continues. Some 60-70 per cent of people in the world’s poorest countries live in rural area
basically Asian and African continents.
1
Research scholar from Nepal at Department of Social Science, College of forestry, Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of
Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni (Solan), HP, India. For comments and suggestions on this paper please email to:
[email protected]
Common properly resources are the local resource base, which comprise such assets
like ponds, stream, woodland and forests, grazing land (rangeland and pastureland), village
tanks and fisheries and wetland. They are for the most part common property and one
frequently managed by communitarian institutions.
Dasgupta, (1982, 1993, 2003a) Dasgupta and Maler (1991, 1995) have attempted to
uncover the pathways by which poverty and reproductive behavior among rural people is
linked to the state of their local resource based.
Though it has been neglected (Stern, 1989; Brown, 2000) we would not obtain a clean
picture of rural life in the world’s poorest region, if we neglect the direct role, the local
resource base play there. And if we do so they may manage to create in order to cope with
those needs. For them - and they are among the poorest in society - there are no frequently
alternative source of livelihood, nor is migration usually an option. The poor suffered from
lack of substitution possibilities in always the rich don’t (Agrawal, 1986; Jodha, 2001, and
Campbell et al., 2001). The CPRs are asset with differ in characteristics, but are facing
different economic circumstance. When a resource in not individually or state owned it
requires a collective of people to organize and protect the resources in order to avert openaccess plunder.
South Asia CPRs
South Asia is experiencing rapid changes with increasing integration into the world
economy, a rapid growing population increasing per capita income, but with large numbers
still living in absolute poverty. Given that a large number of people still depend on CPRs,
the concern for their sustainable use is obvious. There have also been experiments at
expanding community control over their resources.
Large scale changes in property right have been witnessed across South Asia – in
India and Nepal, like handing over of forests to communities is a great success in Nepal.
The extent of livelihood dependence on natural resource management in South Asia
by various estimates ranges from 15 to 29 percent where as in part of Africa it has been
found to be higher as 35-51 percent (Cavandish 2000; Chopra, Kadekodi, and Murty 1990;
Jodha 1986, 2001; Kerapeletswe and Lovett 2001). Earlier studies suggested that both the
rich and the poor (relatively more) depend on natural resources for their livelihood,
especially on CPRs. The CPRs have been found to act not only as buffer during period of
crisis when normal source of income fail, but also act a source of income during normal
time.
The literature points out the use of two definitions of sustainability: one is the
efficient measure of maximizing the net benefit value of intertemporal consumption and the
other seeks to ensure that the future level of consumption do not fall below present one.
Consequently, except in some isolated tribal communities, CPR in South Asia remain
community resource mainly in a de facto sense, subject to any change as state decides.
A number of CPRs have been degraded or privatized, as Jodha (2008) recorded
there have been a 40 -50 percent decline in CPRs area in his study area and 25 – 85 percent
reported degradation.
In South Asia more over the research and study of CPRs has been centered on and
around following only:
1. Forestry:
Nepal, Bangladesh, India Sri Lanka
2. Water and Fisheries:
India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
3. Land management:
India, Pakistan
4. Irrigation:
India, Sri Lanka
5. Pastureland and rangeland:
Some works in India Model has been developed by
Dasgupta (2008) but waiting for the empirical study.
The review of some studies has been done in this paper.
Problems in mountain
At the production level, the smallholder in mountain faces problems of acute fodder
shortage and is still largely isolated from appropriate and beneficial technology option
(Tulachan and Neupaue, 1999). Dhar (1997) reported that Uttarakand the shortage of feed
and fodder is estimated to be 65 per cent. In Nepal especially during the winter and the dry
period livestock are generally underfed by one third of the amount required. The situation is
much worse in the mountains because of small land holdings and the limited support land
for grazing. This has resulted in late maturity, high mortality, poor lifetime performance and
infertility (Sherchand and Pradhan 1997). This affinity affected the livelihood of the people.
The primary reason for shortage of fodder and the shrinking per capita land
moldings and loss of forest and degraded pasture land; which has reduced the resources
base per head of livestock. Animal number per household have decreased while the total
livestock unties (LU) have gradually increased. Many common property resource (CPRs),
where farmers used to graze their livestock unimpeded, are also becoming protected area.
Even in well managed community forests, fodders species and grasses area still
scarce. There are restrictions imposed to collected fodder and graze livestock in the
community forest area.
Livestock contributes to the maintained of soil fertility. There is scope for
contributing to the sustainable management of soil through better management of livestock.
In a semi-stall fed system, about 46% of manure produced during the day time is lost while
animals are grazing in the forest or on communal fallow land (Bajracharya, 1998).
The amount to support land in terms of pasture and grassland has declined over time. One
hectare of agriculture land has 0.45 hectares of support land, which is much less than
desired.
Livestock contributes 20 per cent of household cash income in the hills and
mountain without taking home consumption of livestock product in to account (Nepal
Rastra Bank, 1988).
Percentage charge in number of buffalo and goat are a positive indication of their
importance, while the charge in cattle and sheep is negative and shows their decreasing
importance in total hard composition and in the economy. To noticeable change is in sheep
population in Nepal (table1).
An analysis of temporal changes in livestock population and composition from
1978-1988 in U P (now Uttarakhand) and H.P from 1982-1992, (table 2), show that
whereas the cattle population has declined the buffalo population has greatly increases.
Among small ruminants the sheep population has declined. It is interesting to observe that
there has been a significant increase in goat population. The percentage share of both
buffalo and goat has increase, while percentage share of sheep and cattle has decreased or
gone down.
Table1: Livestock population and composition in Mountain and Hills of Nepal
Mountain
Livestock
class
Cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goat
Change in
pollution
88/89-96/97
+ 3.17
+ 0.58
- 9.59
+ 2.87
Hills
Change in Share
88/89-96/97
+ 0.89
0
-1.70
+ 0.80
Change in
population
88-/89-to96-97
Change in Share
88/89 to 96-97
+ 5.77
+ 8.30
-2.53
+9.37
-0.51
+ 0.21
-9.59
+ 2.87
Source: Agricultural statistic of Nepal (1990) and Statistical information on Nepalese Agriculture
(1996- 97) HMG/MOAC/ Agricultural statistical division, Nepal.
Table 2: Livestock population and composition in Indian Himalayas
Livestock
Species
Cattle
Buffalo
Sheep
Goat
Central Himalaya
Uttarkhand (1978-1988)
-5.2
-3.0
+15.1
+2.5
-9.1
-1.0
+7.1
+1.4
Western Himalayas
(H.P.) (1982-92)
-1.06
-0.71
+13.64
+1.62
-8.15
-1.91
+5.25
+1.00
Source: 1) Directorate of land resource (1992) Livestock Census, Govt. of H.P., Shimla, India.
2) Revenue Department, Livestock Census, Government of U.P., Lucknow, India.
Pastureland Scenario:
Animal husbandry has bean the integral component of traditional family system in
hills of South Asian countries. Pasture land provides grazing resources, are now susceptible
to degradation due to heavy grazing pressure through repeated seasonal grazing. The system
of nomadic grazing for economic and ecological sustenance is also losing ground day after
day because of shrinking forest area and degrading pastures and rangelands.
The rained pasture resource degradation is a challenging problem. Although pasture
land and rangeland constitute about nearly equivalent to cropped area yet very title research
has been make on silvi-pastoral, pastoral farming and improvement of fodder resources.
The linkages of pastoral farming, socio-economic factors consideration along with
research and development effects are the prominent aspects to analyses for efficient
resource utilization in CPRs. That is, conservation and effective harnessing of most
precious grasslands. Nepal's total rangelands are estimated to cover about 1.75 million
hectares, or nearly 12 percent of Nepal’s total land area. The key sources of pastureland
/rangeland in Nepal come primarily from high mountains and high Himalaya’s areas which
make up nearly 79.83% of Nepal's total pastureland.
Table 3: Distribution of Pastureland in Nepal (km2)
Physiographic
Region
Total Land Area
Pastureland
hectare
(x000,000)
%
hectare
(x000)
%
of %
of
Total
Rangeland
Land
Tarai (plain)
2.1
14.4
49.7
0.3
2.9
Siwaliks
1.9
12.7
20.6
0.1
1.2
Middle Mountains
4.4
29.5
292.8
2.0
17.2
High Mountains
2.9
19.7
507.1
3.4
29.8
High Himalaya
3.5
23.7
831.5
5.6
48.9
TOTAL
14.8
100.0
1701.7
11.4
100
Source: Land Resource Mapping Project (1986)
Objective
The main objective of this paper is to review the different research works performed
in South Asian region on common property resources especially on pastures and linkages
with livelihood. This also aims to find out the gaps in the research areas for the linkages
with livelihood opportunity.
Review of Literature
How commons are important has been studied by Jodha (1986) in 21 dry districts in
India. The study reveals that among poor families the proportion of income based directly
on their local commons in the range 15-25 per cent. Similarly, Cavendish (2000) study
supported even larger estimates the proportion of income based directly on the local
commons is 35 per cent with the figure for the poorest quintile reaching 40 percent. Both
the research discovered and concluded on samples those richer households draw a smaller
proportion of their total income from the common than poor households.
Pathania et al (2008) revealed that the consumption of different products from CPR
lands has been found to increase with decrease in the size of landholdings, which underlines
the need to increase the productivity of CPR lands. The analysis of linkages between
different farm sectors has revealed strong forward linkages of CPRs with livestock and
agriculture and weak backward linkages with other sectors.
CPRs management through viewed as complex of interpersonal networks and Das
Gupta (1993) Pretty & Ward (2001) hints at the basis upon which co-operation had
traditionally built. Seabright (1997) in a study on South Indian village found that
cooperation in one sphere of life (managing the commons) makes cooperation in other
spheres (marketing milk) that much easier : cooperation begets cooperation. They
organically cope with resource allocation problem.
Beteille (1983) the management of local commons is entitlement to products the
commons is frequently based on private holding: Richer household enjoy a greater
proportion of benefit from the common.
Agrawal (2001) recorded in his study on communal forestry that women are
sometimes excluded as in participation and decision making.
A recent empirical study on South Africa has tested the theory that rapid population
growth in the world poorest region has been accompanied by increase deforestation,
reduced fallows biomass declined, environmental destruction and poverty (Agrawal et al.,
2001; Das Gupta 1993 and 2003a) deterioration of pastureland.
A study in N E Kenya on privatization of common grazing lands established that
the transformation took place with the consent of elder of the tribe. The elders were from
the stronger families which lead to privatization accentuated in equality with in tribe
(Ensminger’s, 1990 and North & Thomas, 1973).
Sheep enterprise was a continuous source of income (three shearing in a year) and
contributed about 50 percent household income on medium farms in Bharmaur tehsil of HP,
India (Oberoi & Moorti, 1986).
In order to increase the total biomass production of foage from unproductive lands
was emphasis by Krishnamurthy et al, (1987) in their article and stated on importance of
silvi-pastoral and rangeland management. Similarly Pathak & Roy (1987) pointed out that
national forage needs can be achieved by half by managing pastoral land and rangeland land
use capability and land use system.
In Ethiopia, Tothill (1988) found strong linkages between livestock and crop
production on small farm in hills. The relation was leguminous forage with soil fertility
status.
Using input out put model Parasnis (1976) and Batini (1977) stressed the need to
view the integration between forestry and agriculture in general land use scheme.
Sharma et al (1991) observed linkages of farming system with common property
resources. He emphasizes key issues on increased pressure on common property resource
and inequality in income generation in different agro climatic zones of H.P. India.
Comparing dynamics to linkages between two periods 1959-60 and 1990-91, Singh
et al (1995) observed that latter year market oriented input were increased due to
introduction of improved livestock and degradation of forest and grazing lands.
The livelihood security to the resource poor and landless has been identified as one
of the biggest challenges confronting development agencies (Hedge, N.G., 2004). Although
all natural resources providing gainful self employment, are not properly managed rather
under utilized.
Hedge (2004) suggested that integrated livestock and development of community
pastures can play very important role in achieving sustainable livelihood.
Paul D. K. (2004) suggested the participating approach to natural resource
management which led to address natural resource degradation problem and provide
economically viable measures for sustainable food and livelihood security.
Hedge (2004) mutinied that community pastures management in Rajsthan had
increased the output in the form of fodder and fuel food (about Rs.6000 to 7000 one yr) and
directly increment in production of livestock.
There is need of strong analytical method to capture and preserve interactions
between crop and livestock production, considering the importance of common property
resources in natural resource degradation (Dixon et al., 1990).
A common property resources are neither exclusive nor discriminative is permitted
in respect of their access by all members that differentiate with private property. Exclusivity
is the major factor and is not found in common property resource (Harwick and Olewiler,
1986; Fischer and Krutila 1974).
Jodha (1986b) defined common properly resources are the resources accessible to
whole community of village and to which no individual has exclusive property rights. In
Indian and Nepalese context the CPRs are village common lands, community pastures,
thrusting floor, rivers, and rivers banks.
Garen (1993) and Singh (1994) classified resources as common property resource,
open access resource on the basis of property rights characteristics. They pointed out
principal differences between CPRs and open access in that in the CPR case the property
right holder has well defined property right but is absent or exist in the latter.
Gibbs et al (1989) defined institution right as the rules and conventions which
establish the people relationship to resources, translating interest into claims and into
property origins. CP Rights are special types of rights which assume individuals access so
resource over which they have collective claim.
Levine et al (1986) reported that rural poor in India are dependent for their
livelihood upon a mix of private land and C P resources when the role of CPR is critical for
very poor people and stress that planning should be done refereeing these factors.
Damodaran (1988) examined for grazing crisis faced by sedentary village
communities of Indian which own the animals. Deteriorating common pastures and other
grass land severe under nourishment of livestock were identified as major facet of crises.
Sexena (1988) mentioned that grazing lands play major role in the well being of
desert people where each village has at least one common grazing land
Wade (1988) argued that some villages develop and finance joint institutions for
cooperative management of C.P. resource in grazing and irrigation, but other do not.
Mukaiyama and Kawanada (1989) studied the contribution of pasture land to the
farming economy and found that multipurpose cows and milk production contributed most
to the farm income but pasture production and feed self-supply contributed slightly. He
recommended for efficient technique for production and utilization of pasture.
Trampling during grazing pasture near home stead allowed eroded and degraded
scenario in Australians arid grazing lands (Pick up, 1989), which has changed botanical
composition of pastures and reduced productivity of pasture land overtime.
Singh (1989) observed that small farmer were more dependent on CPRs in meeting
their day to day needs for fuel and fodder and timber.
Their relationship between the productivity of natural grazing lands and
atmospheric precipitation was conducted in sub-mountaineer zone of Turkmenia and
Artykov (1990) found that annual precipitation in the region is low (90-431) and directly
related with the productivity of grass lands.
Chopra et al (1990) found that peoples participation in common property resource
management would increase the productivity of privately own assets in lower Shiwalik rage
of Himalayas.
Jodha (1990) realized that CPR play vital role in sustaining the income and
employment in the rural mass by contributing about 30 percent of input to the farm
activities. The CPRs shared substantial proportion 48-55% of arable land for crop
husbandry.
Moorti et al (1990) found that about 60 per cent of farm income was contributed by
sheep and goats.
Jodha (1991, and 1992) documented micro level evidence of the contribution of
CPRs toward the standard of living of low income farmers. There has been direct effect of
management and degradation of common property resources. He emphasized the need for
inclusion of CPRs as one of the components of sustainable rural develops for arid and hilly
states of India.
Pasha (1991) studied in Karnataka on role of common property resources and
ruminant on the small and marginal farmers and found that due to declining productivity of
grazing lands the composition of ruminant changed toward sheep and goats. They can
withstand on poor pasture and stabilized income and asset accumulation.
Gupta et al (1992) analyses the composition of different fodders and their source
wise availability and found that in J & K Kashmir share of grasses to total available fodder
was maximum (53 per cent) and similarly firewood was 30-40 per cent from public land
there were similar response by Chauhan (1995) and Pathania and Vashist (1995)
Garen (1993) reported that most of CPRs in Indian have been degraded due to their
conversion into open access resource, increasing presume, technological advancement and
commercialization and rural sector.
Using game theory Sahu (1995) found that rich responded by withdrawing regular
use of CPRs because of high opportunity cost. However, the poor responded by maximizing
the use of CPRs products even by accepting inferior options. It was concluded that CPR
loss is both individual and communal loss.
Sharma and Bhati (1995) found role of CPR and forests and decided that in low mid
and high hills zone public land play a significant role in meeting day to day household
needs. Annual value of these inputs was estimated at RS. 5562, RS. 8964 and RS. 42604 in
the low, mid and high hill zone respectively.
Singh and Bati (1995) stated that the depended on common pool resource was
found highest among marginal farm (69 per cent) in rural household of Himachal Pradesh,
India.
Singh and Dhillon (1995) in his finding revealed that where there are no project
activities the proportion of household grazing decreased by 2 percent (60 to 58 per cent)
while the share of green fodder increased from 58.4 to 60.7 per cent to the total requirement
in the project activities area.
Gupta (1986) forwarded the view that technological solution to low productivity of
grazing land of arid and semi arid region are limited closure of pasture land affected the
landless livestock farmer more adversely.
Frederick and Sedijo (1991) examined the USA, water forest, rangeland, soil and
cropland and wild life resources. The paper, stress on height in the importance of
establishing institutions that would lead to a socially optimal resource development. It is
argued the sustainability is not possible without management and management is not
possible without a set of institution that establishes the economic incentives for producing
or conserving resources.
A comparison by the two time photographs 1992 and 1989 for tree coverage in
Jhiku Khola, Nepal showed that there was increase in the common land categories
significantly from 1972 to 1989 (Gilmow and Nurse 1991). They revealed it as a strong
indication of afforestation by farms to maintain the tree based farming system.
Methodology
As this paper is a review of papers, so following method is used.
The research papers and literatures regarding the common property resources were
reviewed. Different results were presented as the sub-heading of the common property
resources findings. It was basically whether the pastureland and its role, contribution to
livelihood are reflected or not. The related findings were reviewed and presented as tabular
form. The gaps regarding linkages to livelihood were indicated as the findings.
Result and Discussion
Increased population of human and livestock in developing countries has increased
significantly, indicating tremendous pressure on limited land and other natural resources.
To attain the self sufficiency in food grain production new technologies, infrastructure
incentive, and research has been put on to farmers through government, but no attention has
been paid toward the CPRs, especially the pastureland. The area and productivity has
declined due to over exploitation, encroachment and poor management. These researches
are treated as free goods by society and kept outside the policy issues by planners and
policy maker.
Table 4: Review of literature based on the specified area as mentioned below
Area of study and country
Definitions CPRs and
Open Access
Garen (1993)-India
Linkages
Artykov (1990): weather and
environment - India
Gibbsetal (1989)-India
Jodha (1986)-India
Singh (1994)- India
Bitini (1977): foresry and
agriculture –India
Dixon et al (1990): livestockIndia
Livelihood and Share of
Income
Effect on CPRs and Roles
Jodha (1986)- India
Agrawal et al (2001)- India
Cavendesh ( 2000) –
Zimbabwe
Pasha (1991) – India
Dasgupta (1993) – India
Oberoi and Moorti (1986)
– India
Jodha (1990) – India
Hedge (2004)- India
Garen (1993) – India
Gupta (1989): technology and
production- India
Paul (2004) –India
Levine et al (1986) – India
Hedge (2000): livestock and
pasture- India
Mukaiyama and Kawanada
(1989)- Japan
Sharma & Bhati (1995)India
Parasnis (1976): forestry&
agriculture;
Moorti et al (1990) –India
Damodaran (1988) India
Beteille (1983) –India
Saxena (1989) – India
Jodha (1990) – India
Pickup (1989) – Australia
Sharma et al(1991): livestock
& forestry-India
Tothill(1988): Crop &
livestock;- Ethopia
Jodha (1991, 1992)-India
Gupta (1992) – India
Sahu (1995) –India
Singh & Bati (1995) –India
Singh & Dhillon (1995)India
Motivation and training of weaker section of society awareness generation about
natural resource introduction of multidisciplinary programs and appropriate technologies
and establishment of people’s organization have been suggested as key to success for
ensuring sustainable livelihood to the rural poor. Lack of infrastructure, inadequate
financial resource and poor managerial capabilities, come in the way of tackling poverty
and ensuring livelihood opportunities
New, CPRs has become the focus of research scholars, environmental economics
and NR specialist during 1980’s on ward.
Summary and Conclusion
On the basis of the observed and reviewed literature followings can be reflected.
 Common property resources are basically the primary assets for the livelihood of about
75 percent rural people of India, Nepal and other South Asian countries.
 The income difference has increased the dependencies in to the common property
resources in the rural context.
 The out put from pastureland to the marketable framework is still the managerial concept
for an efficient use of resources available and utilization.
 Increment in population and migration from remote to sub urban and urban region has an
effect on utilization of available traditional occupation mainly sheep husbandry, which
were the basic livelihood of the area.
 The net benefit from farm land and pastureland at zero transaction cost , would be
maximized at higher if some incentives and motivation with new technologies would be
provided to the rural poor. It needs a strong policy for devolution or property rights to
community level.
 The proper and strong property rights mechanism would drive strong motivation to
sustain the farming / enterprise for their livelihood.
 It has been noted that rangeland or pastureland management has been neglected due to
different reasons (maybe remoteness, lack of proper government policy, state ownership,
property rights and so on). There has been insufficient research work strongly
recommending the policy implications of findings. The in-depth knowledge of linkages
with various socioeconomic factors has still been interrelated with biological factors of
grazing land management.
 The technical linkage of pastureland with socioeconomic factors to livelihood security
has to be established for its maximizing net benefit and rather strong political
commitments.
 A frame-work of functional linkages - relation among different components can be
drawn with strong in the bold arrows (figure 1).
Figure 1: Functional linkage among key elements of Pastoral – Livelihood Framework
Silvi-pastoral
Livestock
Agricultural land
 Small animals
 Large animals
 Wild animals
Forest
 Productivity
 Sustainability

Pastureland
Grazing land
Management
Households / Community
 Employment
 Livelihood
 Sustainability
 Productivity
 Sustainability
Functional Linkage among Key elements of Pastoral – Livelihood Framework
Pastureland
Productivity
Note:
α
Livestock
Productivity
α
Household
Productivity
α
Livelihood
thinner linings indicate weaker linkages and thicker linings indicate strong linkages.
α indicates direct proportionate to.
References
Agarwal, A. K. 1988. Forestry development in north east: an approach. Advances in
Forestry Research in India 2: 105-116.
Agarwal, B.1986. Cold hearths and barren slopes: The Wood-fuel Crisis in the Third
World. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
Aggrwal, R. S. Netanyahu, K. and Romano C. 2001. Access to natural resources and the
fertility decision of women: The case o South Africa. Environment and Development
Economics 6(2): 209-236.
Artykov, K. 1990. The cycle of precipitation and forecasting the productivity of pastures.
Problemy Osvoeniya Pustyn. 3: 28-32.
Beteille, A., (ed.) 1983. Equality and inequality: Theory and Practice (Delhi Oxford
University Press).
Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical regularities sin the poverty environment relationships of
rural households: Evidence from Zimbavwe, World Development 28(11): 1979-2003.
Chauhan, K. K. S., Verma, R,. C. and Shukla, G,. C. 1974. Impact of commercial crops on
farm incomes and resources use in Jaipur district of Rajsthan. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics 29(3): 106-114.
Chauhan, S. K.1995. Extent of wastelands and strategy for their rehabilitation in wastern
Himalayas. Paper presented in International Seminar on Natural Resource Management and
Therio linkages with farming systems. June 8-9, 1995, UHF, Nauni Solan (HP).
Chopra, K,., Kadekodi, G. K. and Murty, M. N. 1990. Participatory development people
and common property resources. Sage Publications, New Delhi 163 pp.
Compbel, B., Manando, A., Nemarundwe, N., Sithole, B., Dejong, W., Luckert, M. and
Maltose, F. 2001. Challenges to proponents of common property resource system:
Despairing virces from society forest of Zimbabwe, World Developmetn 29(4): 589-600.
Damodaran, A. 1988. Morphology of grazing and its crisis in sedentary communities.
Economic and Political Weekly. 23: A29-A34.
Dasgupta, P and Maler, K. G. 1995. Poverty institutions and the environmental resource
base in J. Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan eds., Handbook of Development Economics Vol.
III(A) (Amsterdam: North Holland)
Dasgupta, P. 1982. The control of resources (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Dasgupta, P. 2003a. Population, poverty, and the natural environment in K-G Maler and J.
Vicent, ed., Handbook of environmental Economics Vol. 1: Environmental Degradation and
Institutional Responses (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science).
Dasgupta, P. and Maler, K. G. 1991. The environment and emerging development issues.
Proceeding of the World Bank Annual Conference on Developmet Economics 1990, 101132.
Dasgupta, P. and Maler, K. G. 2002. Environmental and resource economics: Some recent
development special issue, working paper No 7-04 South Asian Network for Development
and Environmental Economics (SANDEE) Kathmandu July 2004 57p.
Dasgupta, P.1993. An inquiry into well being and destitution (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Dixon, J,. A., Reyes, B. N. L. and Reyes, D. L. 1990. Issues of sustainability and
agricultural development in Asian Uplands. Farm Management Notes for Asia and the far
east 13: 1-10.
Ensminger, J. 1990. Co-opting the Elders: the Political Economy of State Incorporation in
Africa. American Anthropologist 92.
Fischer, A. C. and Krutilla, J. 1974. Managing the public lands: assessment of property
rights and valuation of resources. Haefele 35-59.
Garen, J. 1993. Aspects of common property resource use in India. TRI News Spring 18-19.
Gibbs, C. J. N., Bromley, D. W. and Berkes, F. 1989. Institutional arrangements for
management for rural resources common property regimes. In: Ecology and Community
Based Sustainable Development (ed. Berkes, F.) 22-32.
Gupta, R., Rana, U., Pathania, M. S., Joorel, J. P. S., Negi, Y. S. and Kaushal, P. K. 1992.
Status of fuel wood and fodder balance and its impact on farm woman in Himachal Pradesh
and Jammu and Kashmir. Regional Centre, AAEB, UHF, Nauni-Solan, 80pp.
Hartiwick J W and Olewiler N C. 1986. The economics of natural resource use. Harper
Collins Publishers 527pp
Hedge, N. G. 2004. Management of Natural Resource for Sustainable Livelihood: BAIF’s
Approach. In: Natural Resource Management and Livelihood Security: Survival Strategies
and Sustainable Policies. Edited by Sundaram, K. V., Moni, M. and Jha, M. M. New Dehli:
Bhoovigyan Vikas Foundation. 3-33p.
Jodha, N. S. 1986. Common property resources and the rural poor. Economic and Political
Weekly 21, 1169-1181.
Jodha, N. S. 1986b. Common property resources and rural poor in dry region of India.
Economic and Political Weekly 30(27): 1169-1181.
Jodha, N. S. 1990. Rural common property resources contribution and crisis. Economic and
Political Weekly 25(260: A65-A78.
Jodha, N. S. 1991. Rural common property resources: a growing crisis. Gatekeeper Series
Sustainable Agriculture Programme, International Institute for Environment and
Development No. 24: 16pp.
Jodha, N. S. 1992. Common property resources: a missing dimension of development
strategies. World Bank Technical Paper 169: 87pp.
Jodha, N. S. 2001. Life on the edge, sustaining agriculture and community resources in
fragile Environments (Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Jodha, N. S. 2008. Some places again: a ‘restricted’ revisit to dry regions of india. In
promise, trust,and evolution: managing the commons of South Asia. Ed. Ghate, Rucha,
Jodha,N. S. and Mukhopadhyay. New York, Oxford University Press, 1651-69pp
Levine, G. Bentley, W. R., Brockbank B. and Ghildyal, B. P. 1986. Problems and solutions
lesions from experience with rural resource development project. Discussion paper series,
Ford Foundation, India 20: 14.
Moorti, T. V, Oberoi R. C. and Thakur D. R. 1990. Impact of sheep and goats on the
economy and environment of high altitude areas of Himachal Pradesh. Final Technical
Report, Department of Agriculture Economics, HPKV, Palampur 213pp.
Mukaiyama, S. A Kawanabe, S. 1989. Dairy farming on the west slope of Mt. Fuji with
reference to pasture utilization. Proceedings of XIV International Grassland Congress 4-11
October, Nice, France 1301-1302.
Negi, Y. S. 1999. Sustainable livestock management in mixed crop livestock family system
of Himachal Pradesh, India. Paper presented at the joint ICIMOX_FAO workshop on mixed
crop livestock family system in high pressure area of the Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu
Nepal
North, D. and Thomas, R. P. 1973. The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic
history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Oberoi, R. and MoortyT. V. 1986. Economic Analysis of Sheep Farming in Tribal Farm of
Bharmaur Tehsil. Himanchal Journal of Agricultural Research. 12 (1): 35-46.
Pasha, S. A. 1991. Sustainabilityad viability of small and marginal farmer’s animal
husbandry and common property resources. Economic and Political Weekly 26(13): A27A30.
Paul, D. K. 2004. Natural Resource Management for food Security and Sustaining
Agricultural. In: Natural Resource Management and Livelihood Security: Survival
Strategies and Sustainable Policies. Edited by Sundaram, K. V., Moni, M. and Jha, M. M.
New Dehli: Bhoovigyan Vikas Foundation. 34-55p.
Pathania, M.S.; Sharma, K. D. and Harbans, Lal. 2008. System Synergy of Farming System
and Common Property Resources in Mountain Regions: A Case Study of Himachal
Pradesh. Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol.: 21, No.: 1, June 2008
Pickup, G. 1989. New land degradation survey techniques for arid Australia problem and
prospects. Austrailian Rangeland Journal 11(2): 74-82.
Pretty, J. and Ward, H. 2001. Social Capital and the Environment, World Development
29(2): 209-227.
Sahu, A. 1995. Games theory and the tragedy of commons. Yojna June 1995: 35-36.
Seabright, P. 1997. Is cooperation habit forming in P. Dasgupta and K-G Male reds., The
Environment and Emerging Development Issues Vol.-II (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Sexena, S. K. 1988. Present status of common village grazing lands of Indian desert and
there possible management rangeland resource management. Proceedings of the National
Rangeland Management Symposium, IGFRI, Jhansi, Nov. 9-12 (Eds, Singh, P. and P.s.
Pathak). 84-92.
Sharma, L. R. and Bhati, J. P. 1995. Role of Forest in Mountain Farming System of
Himachal Pradesh. Preper presented in Internation Seminar On Natural Resource
management and their Linkages with Farming System. June 8-9, 1995. UHF, nauni-Solan
(HP).
Sherchand, L. and Pradhan, S. L. 1997. Domestic animal genetic resource management and
utilization in Nepal. Kathmadu: Dept. of Livestock Services
Singh, D. V. and Bati, J. P. 1995. Role of Common Pool Resourcesin Household Energy
need in Himachal Pradesh. Paper Presented I international Seminar on Natural Resource
management and their Linkages with Farming Systems. June 8-9, 1995, UHF, Nauni-Solan
(HP).
Singh, K. 1994. Managing common pool resources principles and case studies, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi 357p.
Singh, K. and Ballabh, V. 1989. Afforestation of village common lands: A case study of
Aslali village woodlot in Gujrat. Institute of Rural Management, Anand 28 pp.
Smith, M. F. 1986. The impact of changing agricultural systems on the nutritional status of
farm households in developing countries. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 8(3): 25-29.
Thakur, D. R, Sharma, K. D. and Thakur, D. C. 1995. Impact of sheep and goats farming on
natural resources of Himachal Pradesh. Paper presented in international Seminar on Natural
Resource Management and Their Linkages with Farming Systems, June 8-9, 1995, UHF,
Nauni - Solan ,HP
Tulachan, P. M. and Neupane, T. 1999. Livestock in mixed farming system of the HinduKush-Himalayas: Trends and sustainability. FAO. ICIMOD, Kathmandu 116p.
Wade, R. 1988. Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in South India.
Cambridge South Asian studies, Cambridge University Press. 238pp.